73 Okla. Crim. 261 - Clapp v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 1982
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Smart v. Kansas City · 33 Okla. Crim. 100 - Nail v. State · 61 Okla. Crim. 318 - Cooper v. State · 70 Okla. Crim. 97 - Welborn v. State · 17 Okla. Crim. 252 - Steeley v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the duty of the court to determine as a matter of law whether the evidence is such as to justify the submission of both or either of these issues to the jury. This duty may sometimes be extremely difficult, and if there is any doubt about the matter in the mind of the court, the lower degree of the homicide should be submitted for the consideration of the jury. * * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Abel v. State · Jones v. State““ ‘ * * * The verdict will not be disturbed on the ground the jury found defendant guilty of a lower degree of the crime charged than that established by the evidence. It sometimes happens the jury, in arriving at a verdict, does so by a compromise and fixes a lower degree than the undisputed evidence may disclose. Some states have reversed convictions under such circumstances, but, with two exceptions, this court has held the error is in favor of the accused and is not ground for a new trial. The exceptions are: Leseney v. State, 13 Okl. Cr. 247, 163 P. 956 , and Lovejoy v. State, 18 Okl.Cr. 335 , 194 P. 1087 . These cases have been criticized and have not been followed. Irby v. State, 18 Okl.Cr. 671 , 197 P. 526 ; Taylor v. State, 44 Okl.Cr. 58 , 278 P. 1117 . We are satisfied the law on this point is correctly stated in the following cases: Lytton v. State, 12 Okl.Cr. 204 , 153 P. 620 ; Lazenby v. State, 18 Okl.Cr. 83 , 192 P. 1103 ; Smith v. State, 20 Okl.Cr. 301 , 202 P. 519 ; Wilmoth v. State, 20 Okl.Cr. 453 , 203 P. 1055 , 21 A.L.R. 590 ; Inman v. State, 22 Okl.Cr. 161 , 210 P. 742 ; Taylor v. State, supra; Berry v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 154 , 18 P.2d 285 .’ ” 1”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Abel v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.